Jesus

So now we're arguing symnatics.

Let's turn it around. What evidence IS there to the contrary: that Jesus had any real significance in his life and that the movement was big before Paul?

"Everyone I Disagree with is Jewish: a White Nationalist's Guide to Online Discourse"

Your circumcised penis is showing Schlomo

>high level of discourse is expected

>please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.

sage

He's right though

That the end was nigh, and would take place within the first century.

>inb4 he didn't mean the end of the world he meant his resurrection and/or the destruction of the Temple

Obviously not true. Jesus is very clear that the end is nigh and to be ready. He was definitely apocalyptic, and every early Christian writing we have reflect this apocalyptic attitude.

>the difference between a city and a village is semantics

Reza Aslan is a low IQ retard

I havn't seen you address any points about the scale of his missionary pre-Paul.

If it wasn't a big movement till Paul comes a long that pretty much cements the idea that the religion was his doing.

Not the one you're replying to but... we don't really know what Christians believed before Paul. Paul is the earliest Christian writer we know of. The creed Paul quotes in, I think, in Corinthians is agreed by many scholars to be pre-Paul; thus it must have been inherited from an earlier written or oral Christian tradition. Corinthians is typically dated to around 55-58, but sometimes as early as 49. The creed affirms that Christ was raised on the third day, so I don't think Paul invented the ascension / resurrection.

You said Jesus' influence didn't exist outside of a few villages next to each other (probably you meant Galilee) when it's documented he had strong support in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Jerusalem church is older than Paul and actually opposed Paul and tried to get him killed.

What is nigh? Otherwise do you have source saying that ? In the Bible ?

Well that's a good point about the Creed.

Would you agree it is reasonable Paul increased the significance of his death?

The attempts to chronocle Jesus's life are heavy on parables and moral teachings which I think is what would have comprised his movement when he was alive.

I don't buy the idea him being apocalyptic prophet is his defining trait. There were many apocalyptic prophets and they all failed. I am not saying he wasn't apocalyptic but I don't think that's what made him memorable.

>This man's a "low IQ retard"
youtube.com/watch?v=0KNQ5rRxh6Q

>Thoughts
Very very edgy and fedorable. Especially the part about Jesus being an apocalyptic preacher, even though Revelations was written by John well after Christ died and said nothing about the Rapture. In fact most of that is a modern mythology expounded by pr*testants

In the first Gospel Jesus has his followers run around like the city is on fire telling everyone it's happening.

>That the end was nigh, and would take place within the first century.

When did he say that?

The apocalyptic nature of Jesus' preaching is supported in the Gospels. You don't need Revelations. Christ's central message in the earliest Gospel (Mark) is "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." He explicitly says that he will return "before this generation passes away."

Now whether or not Jesus actually said this, or if this is "Mark's" projection stemming from the political and religious atmosphere of his day, is hard to tell. Many have argued that all the apocalyptic elements in the Gospels are inventions of Mark or perhaps earlier sources who believed that because Christ had been raised, the general resurrection was soon to come.

Mark 13, is one example

Paul also clearly believed the end was eminent, and Paul's epistles pre-date the Gospels.

>Revelations
>s
AH FUCK OFF

>What is nigh?

Nigh means near; close at hand

>Source?

Yes. Mark 13 is one example.

Catholics don't read the bible

surprise, surprise

Bad post

>Tfw athiests come from such a proddie background that they think the Second Coming was an apocalyptic event like it was in Revelation
The central tenants of Christ's teachings was not to become prepper and hide out in your little bomb shelter for the Rapture, the Second Coming was hardly a central tenant in the religion. The Kingdom of God being at hand was a reference to coming of the Church and people being able to find salvation through Christ.

It does not compare in anyway to modern Christians, and doing so is just projecting onto the past

Proddies don't actually read the Bible with context. Suprise surprise.

>The second coming barely mattered to early Christians

Please let this be a joke. The eminent return of Jesus and the judgement of the whole world are constantly talked about throughout the NT. The Kingdom of God, is, I agree, something that was largely or partially thought to be in the hands of the apostles via spreading the Gospel to every creature. So it wasn't just "hide and wait" but it was "Christ has been raised, the end is just around the corner, we better repent and spread the message to everyone else as well so they might be saved."

>The central tenants of Christ's teachings was not to become prepper and hide out in your little bomb shelter for the Rapture, the Second Coming was hardly a central tenant in the religion. The Kingdom of God being at hand was a reference to coming of the Church and people being able to find salvation through Christ.

No, the Kingdom of God refers to the final judgment of earth. The view you're describing comes the later gospels where Jesus' apocalyptic message is watered down, claiming the kingdom is already present. Mark, and Matthew say nothing like that and always describe it as a future cataclysmic event.

The view of imminent judgment is also found in Paul, writing before any of the gospels recommends that people don't get married because "time is short" and anticipates he himself will be alive at the second coming.

>No, the Kingdom of God refers to the final judgment of earth. The view you're describing comes the later gospels where Jesus' apocalyptic message is watered down, claiming the kingdom is already present. Mark, and Matthew say nothing like that and always describe it as a future cataclysmic event.
>The amount of mental gymnastics athiests have to do to make it seem like early Christianity was like a modern incarnation of proddie prepper shit
Or, or- maybe the Kingdom of God always referred to Jesus, the Messiah, leading people to salvation and into the uh - heaven - or kingdom of God as it were
>Constantly talked about
>The Kingdom of God
Yes but never the rapture just that Christ has risen and will come again. There is 0 evidence in the gospels or in any historical context that Christianity was akin to doomsday preppers droning on about the apocalypse and muh seven horsemen

Meanwhile, protestants read and """"interpet""""" the bible so much they think they can find nostradamus-esque future telling in it

>There is 0 evidence in the gospels or in any historical context that Christianity was akin to doomsday preppers droning on about the apocalypse and muh seven horsemen

hmm...

>no context
>not understanding metaphors

did you get to the end of the story op? A retired man no longer working the road? read the whole NT or just one of the versions which are all pretty close. Amazing how many people never read the end of the story which illuminates the whole

I'm pretty sure the author knows the context

>Popular Greek beliefs about ascension to Heaven being made known via a missing body, as well as Roman rule over Judea (with the hopes of YHWH freeing them) being viewed mythically and tribally as a new and perhaps final exodus- both contributed to the deification of Jesus as the Anointed King and Son of God.

"Son of God" is a royal title used by pagan kings. For example, Pharaohs were called "Sons of Ra." Jesus didn't fail, the Jews have always been murderous damned nobodies pretending to be somebodies.

youtube.com/watch?v=bIkjHBYva64

youtube.com/watch?v=dieTfc3Khvo

You realize that *all of this* happens after Jesus dies on the cross, right?be In fact it's said that Romans who saw the crucifixion converted afterwards , which is what is referenced at the last paragraph with "some people won't believe me until they see that the Kingdom of heaven has real power"

Plz tell me you actually read the fucking Bible before you read this book

Cringe

>Cringe

Welcome to reality.

youtube.com/watch?v=4FGMDilYTAA

why'd you drop your trip

Early Gospel used the form 'son of man' or 'son of humanity' which is from the Book of Ezekiel.

>Early Gospel used the form 'son of man' or 'son of humanity' which is from the Book of Ezekiel.

I find it hard to believe that it used exclusively the phrase "son of man" and never "son of God" considering passages like the one included in this screenshot. The gospels are clearly an account of one of the many times the Jews had no problem murdering Kings for a terrorist. They admit themselves they are professional "Kingslayers" - for example, they claim they murdered Jezebel for encouraging worship of Ba'al, the god of storms. They claim they like King Solomon but consider Moses a worthy man to stand in judgement over him because Solomon had multiple wives and worshiped the gods instead of a terrorist. Is there a word in the Bible about how Moses shouldn't have slaughtered the men, women and children of neighboring tribes and raped the virgin women? But King Solomon, whomever he was, was "evil" because he had more than one wife?

And then there was the time they converted King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon to Judaism after King Nebuchadnezzar discovered you can't burn Jews in furnaces (Daniel 3).

And for these reasons they spend eternity in hell along with their co-conspirators.

youtube.com/watch?v=M9m9h69AeR8